Cowards, Honesty, and John Derbyshire [Reader Post]

In February, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the United States was “a nation of cowards” on matters of race, and that most Americans avoid discussions of racial issues. Holder said, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

Holder said after his speech, “If we’re going to ever make progress, we’re going to have to have the guts, we have to have the determination, to be honest with each other. It also means we have to be able to accept criticism where that is justified.”

Holder’s speech reinforced President Barack Hussein Obama’s speech in 2008 on race relations. Obama urged the nation to break “a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years” and bemoaned the “chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”

Now John Derbyshire, after writing “The Talk: Nonblack Version at Taki’s Magazine, was fired from National Review for writing an article that Holder and Obama advocated. And National Review” has fired yet another contributor over the same issue: University of Illinois professor emeritus Robert Weissberg. Honesty or cowardice?

In “The Talk: Nonblack Version:”

In paragraph (7), Derbyshire says, “Of most importance to your personal safety are the very different means for antisocial behavior, which you will see reflected in, for instance, school disciplinary measures, political corruption, and criminal convictions.”

Regarding school disciplinary measures, this University of Kansas study reinforces his conclusion: Positive Behavior Support demonstrated significant reductions in disciplinary actions and suspensions.

Regarding political corruption, this University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee study also reinforces his conclusion: We find that corruption is associated with historical/cultural forces.

Regarding criminal convictions, The Sentencing Project reports that the national incarceration rate in 2005 the national rate is 5.6 blacks to one white.

In paragraph (10e), Derbyshire says, “If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.”

Here is what happened in August, 2011, at the Wisconsin State Fair: Norb Roffers, fairgoer, said, “It looked like they were just going after white guys, white people. They were attacking everybody for no reason whatsoever.” “It was 100% racial,” said Eric, an Iraq war veteran. A group of anywhere from 30 to 100 young black men descended on the Wisconsin State Fair, beating fairgoers and looting carnival games, in what witnesses said were racially-motivated attacks.

In paragraph (10f), Derbyshire says, “Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.”

Detroit’s mayor is Dave Bing. And here is the Detroit city council. Let’s look at what has happened in Detroit: Deeper deficit, Overestimated revenues, Running in the red, Cash crunch, and Debt rating downgrades.

In paragraph (11), Derbyshire says, “The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. ‘Life is an IQ test’.”

Derbyshire provide sources to support his contentions. Regarding his every test statement, consider this from his source: “There is a huge academic literature on the gaps in cognitive test results, practically all of it converging on the fact that African American mean scores on cognitive tests fall below the white means by a tad more than one white standard deviation.”

Regarding his IQ test remark, a study of home mortgage foreclosures supports him. (see the graph at the bottom of page 2 of this pdf)

In paragraph (12), Derbyshire says, “There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher.”

Research again supports his conclusion. From Jain, Sloan, and Horowicz, we learn that the “strict top down” method [choosing the highest test scorer] method offered the highest quality workforce, but also the greatest adverse impact against low-scoring designated groups. (see page 97 of this source)

Regarding John Derbyshie, a further examination of his attitude and thoughts are, in my opinion, warranted. At the University of Pennsylvania Law School, on April 5, 2010, speaking at a Black Law Students’ Association meeting, he said, “I am here not to take one side or the other on the topic under debate [can government eliminate disparities caused by race], but to say that the topic, as written, is based on a false premise, and therefore has no satisfactory answer. I don’t believe the disparities under discussion can be eliminated. Debate about whether government should play a greater or lesser role in eliminating them is therefore, in my opinion, otiose.”

He continued, “…racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races. Those differences are facts in the natural world, like the orbits of the planets. They can’t be legislated out of existence; nor can they be ‘eliminated’ by social or political action. That there are natural, intractable differences between the human races seems apparent to me on both rational and empirical grounds”

He concludes, “Even at the things we are good at, most of us are not very good. I make my living by writing; yet I can name, in my own small personal acquaintance, a dozen people who are better writers than I am. That’s not even to mention the Shakespeares and Tolstoys. Most of us are hopeless at most things, and mediocre at the rest.

And yet — look! We don’t lose sleep over this. We don’t sink into rage and frustration at our own individual differences, or agitate for politicians to put balm on our psychic wounds. We accept our individual shortcomings with remarkable equanimity, playing the cards we’ve been dealt as best we can. That is the attitude of a healthy human being.”

My intent here is not to show and/or confirm that blacks are inferior – far from it. All I am trying to do here is to (1) illustrate that John Derbyshire is not some hate-spewing racist crackpot, and (2) that Holder and Obama did not mean what they said.

When Derbyshire tried to follow Holder’s advice, he got fired. And a little research shows Derbyshire to be correct!

bbartlog

Derbyshire is right, of course. Ultimately National Review is going to become irrelevant if they insist on this kind of self-censorship, and be superseded by Taki’s mag or American Conservative or for that matter Steve Sailer, all of whom have had the courage to write about racial matters honestly for some time.
It is in some ways telling that they fired him. It’s one thing to be *wrong*; in that case, they’d have someone write up an article raking him over the coals and pointing out his errors. He’d be embarrassed, they’d score points for being right. But when someone is right but out of bounds… well, there’s nothing to be done but make an example of them.

Greg

Derbyshire providea sources to support his contentions. Regarding his every test statement, consider this from his source: “There is a huge academic literature on the gaps in cognitive test results, practically all of it converging on the fact that African American mean scores on cognitive tests fall below the white means by a tad more than one white standard deviation.”

I wonder what Derbyshire would have to say about all of the recent studies concerning biology, Intelligence Quotient, and political orientation?

I think maybe we’re better off as a society if we simply agree to put certain statistical data away at the back of the bottom drawer of the filing cabinet. Even if there’s some validity to it when we’re considering the entirety of some defined segment of the population, it doesn’t provide reliable information about any particular individual. It can, however, be terribly damaging to individuals if it becomes the basis for generalizations. We’ve seen more than enough examples of that in world history, and in our own American history.

MyOwnEyes

Tom

From OP

And a little research shows Derbyshire to be correct!

It’s one thing to defend the research; it’s another to defend Derbyshire’s usage of the research as reasons for the actions and attitudes he advocates for. You might find this piece from Slate interesting, which addresses that crucial distinction.

Derbyshire thinks his data warrant his conclusions. But all his data references include the crucial term “mean” or “average.” They don’t tell you about the person walking toward you. They tell you what you can assess about the probability of danger when the only information you have is color
….
The starting point for Derbyshire’s talk is street crime, a situation in which you might have little time or opportunity to learn about the person you’re approaching. All you might see at first glance is color. But once Derbyshire opens that loophole, he extends it to other situations such as the DMV, where you have more of an opportunity to observe and converse instead of guessing. What’s striking in Derbyshire’s advice is his constant emphasis on not learning anything.
….
But if you’re going to present evidence for aggregate differences, you have to tell the rest of the story. You have to acknowledge socioeconomic status, stereotype threat, and other factors that can affect performance. And you have to remind people that drawing inferences about anyone based on race, sex, religion, or any other crude category is a lousy substitute for inspecting or interacting with that individual. If you tell people to protect themselves by avoiding interaction with the person they’re judging, you’re not just rationalizing racism. You’re perpetuating it.

Tom

Nan G

@Greg:
Greg, I have never agreed with you more.
Here is what you said:

I think maybe we’re better off as a society if we simply agree to put certain statistical data away at the back of the bottom drawer of the filing cabinet. Even if there’s some validity to it when we’re considering the entirety of some defined segment of the population, it doesn’t provide reliable information about any particular individual. It can, however, be terribly damaging to individuals if it becomes the basis for generalizations. We’ve seen more than enough examples of that in world history, and in our own American history.

But, as Warren Beatty points out, Holder and Obama said the opposite!
Holder:

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”

Obama:

Obama urged the nation to break “a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years” and bemoaned the “chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”

John D. was not fired from National Review for his quotes from studies.
He was fired for his opinions such as a few included by Warren here.
Opinions such as:

“If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.”

This is on the same level as Obama’s telling Americans to stop wasting money by visiting Las Vegas.
It is hurtful and serves no real good.
And:

“Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.”

I used to live in L.A. when we had a black mayor.
Tom Bradley.
He was a successful enough mayor to later try running for Gov.

Warren concluded:

All I am trying to do here is to (1) illustrate that John Derbyshire is not some hate-spewing racist crackpot, and (2) that Holder and Obama did not mean what they said.

1. Derbyshire made some generalizations that are very prejudicial.
2. Holder and Obama meant what they said to the extent they could control the narrative 100%.
But, as we all know, that’s impossible.
The law of unintended consequences demands that a narrative will get away from its originator.
This one got away from Holder and Obama early and extensively.
This didn’t help:http://www.cehwiedel.com/blogs/traces-pix/2009/08/ObamaGatesCrowley.jpg

Tom

John D. was not fired from National Review for his quotes from studies.
He was fired for his opinions such as a few included by Warren here.

As I understand the thrust if this post, and your comment, Derbyshire’s firing somehow proves that (from original post) “Holder and Obama did not mean what they said”. Okay, where is the proof that the National Review fired Derbyshire at the behest of either Holder or Obama, or even that they supported such an outcome? Is there any reason to think that the National Review, of all publications, would theoretically support Holder and Obama in censoring John Deryshire? Without that link, this post has no other reason to exist other than to rehash Derbyshire’s opinions, just under the false guise that he’s somehow a martyr to Holder and Obama’s perfidious double-dealing.

I would opine that Derbyshire’s firing was a simple business decision. He became a liability to the NR because his association with that publication threatened to damage the brand. Wherever you land on the merits of his article, his opinions are clearly out of the American mainstream and were interpreted as racist by many people on both the Right and the Left. Many of his NR colleagues disavowed his views publicly once the story broke. Why? Well, does the NR want to be identified with those views? I thought this was how capitalism worked – if you’re making money for your employer, you have a job; if you’re losing money for your employer, you could very well be fired.

Nan G

@Tom:
Sorry if my faulty writing and your reading comprehension did not meet, Tom.
I did not mean to lead a reader to think there was a cause and effect between Obama/Holder and John’s firing.

This (which you wrote) was NOT what I meant at all….

As I understand the thrust if this post, and your comment, Derbyshire’s firing somehow proves that (from original post) “Holder and Obama did not mean what they said”. Okay, where is the proof that the National Review fired Derbyshire at the behest of either Holder or Obama, or even that they supported such an outcome?

My point was that John made crass and hasty generalizations based somewhat loosely on on some studies, true, but still inflammatory.
Holder and Obama wanted (when they spoke their above quoted words) a dialogue on race, but only if they could control the narrative. Their own unintended consequences have long ago ruined this, nothing John said or did recently.

ilovebeeswarzone

Tom

I couldn’t support your right to do so more. The point of the article I posted (if you bothered to read it) is that John Derbyshire’s “advice” advocates a painfully simplistic methodology for identifying threats whereby he actively discourages going any deeper than skin color in almost all instances. For an intellectual, he seems quite content to preach a willful disinterest in a person’s individual attributes and characteristics – the important drivers in all individual encounters – for a lazy default position based on his interpretation of someone else’s study. Forced self-ignorance is what he is advocating. It’s like a basketball GM drafting Greg Kite over Larry Bird because studies say blacks are better basketball players on average.

Rides A Pale Horse

So, we’re a “nation of cowards” when it comes to “matters of race” but when we try to have an open discussion of the FACTS……….
We’re RAAAAAAAAAAACISTS!!!

That was post #6 on which you responded “we’ll all be right behind you” so you must not have missed it.

The fact remains that the warning is legitimate. Sure, there are exceptions to every rule and that goes for the subject at hand.

The fact that the black community has “spokespersons” the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, et al, whipping “their people” into a frenzy against the white man tells me all I need to know.

I don’t know where you live but in MY “hood” I see the examples of the behavior of this group every day and believe me, it ain’t pretty.

C’mon by here and you can communicate with the brothuhs one on one and pick out the ones that are the exception to the rule, you know, the ones whose “individual attributes and characteristics [that are] the important drivers in all individual encounters”

ilovebeeswarzone

Rides A Pale Horse
hi,I see he has miss the punch on WARREN’S POST,
IT’S OBAMA WHO WANT THE STUDENT DEGREES TO BE LIFT ABOVE THE NORM, FOR THE LESS ACHIEVERS
SO TO EVEN IT UP WITH THE BEST STUDENTS, AND THAT’S WHAT THE TEACHER TEACH THEM,
TO STAY MEDIOCRE, AND THEY WILL PASS JUST THE SAME, THE NEW DEMAND IN SCHOOLS NOW,
DISCREDITING THE ONE WHO EXCEL WHICH ARE NOT INFLUENCE TO PUSH THEIR MINDS TO THEIR CAPACITY SUPERIOR IF THEY ARE NOT SEEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACHIEVING AND NOT LEARNING, AS IT USE TO BE.
BYE

bbartlog

The problem with trying to put the statistics in the bottom of the filing cabinet is that it isn’t possible any more. Everyone can see them with the push of a button – the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the National Crime Victimization Survey (to name just two examples) are available to anyone who’s interested, online.

As for Derbyshire’s advice being hurtful and useless: it can be good advice even if there are exceptions. The question is to what extent I have a moral obligation to identify those exceptions rather than just using a blunt heuristic. In terms of your own personal wellbeing, I would argue that the quality of your decisions will be worst if you act in a completely raceblind way, somewhat better if you paint with a broad brush (basically, following Derb’s advice), and better still if you incorporate specific information about the individuals you’re dealing with. The problem is that A) it’s not always practical to do the latter and B) even when it is, some people would prefer to be lazy (i.e. racist but rational) and make decisions based on generalizations. Currently I guess the norm is to treat this as morally unacceptable. But situations will arise where you don’t have the option of getting specific information…
Leaving that aside, though, there are some problems of public policy where being raceblind leaves you unable to make any sense of the situation. White/black test score gaps being a good example. It’s not fair to condemn teachers, schools, society or anyone else for not being able to solve a problem that could only be addressed by genetic engineering.

John Galt

I have to take issue with the casual tossing of Detroit into the mix. Dave Bing, current mayor, has worked very hard to try to fix the problems the preceding generations of corruption incorporated (aka Detroit government). He has attacked democratic institutions to try to get the finances in line, to bring expenditures aligned with revenues. He has been blasted by black leaders for demanding that the city unwind some of its long historical and corrupt institutions.

He didn’t cause the problems, he has been motivated to fix them, and working hard towards that end.

Really, the guy is a bright ray of sunshine in an otherwise dismal fever swamp of racial and democratic political strong holds.

Bing uncovered that the finances were actually worse off than he had originally assessed. This caused lots of “come to Jesus” meetings, where he and his team (whom are really quite accomplished technocrats), have told the unions and others that politics as usual and contracts as usual don’t work any more. This is an existential fight now, not a fight for power. They can get in line, or be swept out of the way.

The unions have mostly chosen to be swept out of the way. A consent agreement with an emergency management team from the state is coming in, with a CFO and additional management support to ride heard over city departments. The budgets are going to get in line.

And the unions, and the black politicians who regularly, and loudly, play the race cards here; they aren’t too happy. Suing in court. A few soft-in-the-head hard left-liberal judges are allowing their challenges to the law, but higher courts keep striking down those challenges. Some with some amazingly vituperative language for the lower courts.

Dave Bing is doing the best job he can do. Rick Snyder, our governor, a good strong republican (derided as a RINO in the primaries, but by far the best governor I can remember), is doing a good job of working with Dave Bing to give him the hammers and anvils he needs to break the crap from the past. And Dave is using them.

Detroit sucks for many reasons. Coleman Young is one of the primary reasons. Called “hizzonor” by the media, the guy was hopelessly corrupt. Then came others, then Kwame Kilpatrick. In the long history of corrupt and incompetent players heading up Detroit for the sole reason of their skin color and political acumen, Kwame took this to a whole new level. His mama is Caroline Cheeks Kilpatrick, you know, the now former congress lady from Detroit. He had several other relatives in high places.

Kwame is part of the reason that Detroit went from being an afterthought under Coleman Young, to being a joke.

Dave Bing was the latest elected mayor. Dave is also, by far, the best. A real business guy, I’d argue that he’s actually nominally a republican. He was a player for the pistons, bought businesses and formed an investment group in the area. He has skin in the game. He wants … no … needs … Detroit to be successful again.

Don’t blame Dave for the mess. He’s the janitor/repairman trying to fix it. The mess preceded him. He inherited it. To his great credit, he’s done as bang up a job as one can do in a fever swamp of union and democratic controlled city politics and finance. But as he’s discovered, the disease is far deeper than first envisioned, and more stuff has got to be cut. Can’t do that with unions in the way.

Tom

I think your post really exposes the flaw in Warrren’s application of Deryshire’s philosophy. The sheer laziness behind, “Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians” is quite effectively exposed by your impressive defense of Mayor Bing. The irony that Warren would choose Bing as his primo example is just further evidence that choosing forced ignorance by way of broad simplistic ‘rules’ is hardly an effective replacement for doing one’s homework and judging individuals on their own merits or flaws.

Warren

Re: comment # 3, Greg, are you equating brain size with politics?

You say, “I think maybe we’re better off as a society if we simply agree to put certain statistical data away at the back of the bottom drawer of the filing cabinet. Even if there’s some validity to it when we’re considering the entirety of some defined segment of the population, it doesn’t provide reliable information about any particular individual. It can, however, be terribly damaging to individuals if it becomes the basis for generalizations.” Are you advocating dismissing information, even if valid? And, until a person provides information to the contrary, all we have to go on are generalizations.

Perhaps you will find this article by DrJohn interesting. Or is that generalizing too much?

Re: comment # 5, Tom, you quote Slate,, “But all his data references include the crucial term “mean” or “average.” They don’t tell you about the person walking toward you. They tell you what you can assess about the probability of danger when the only information you have is color.” Never been in a life-or-death situatrion, have you?
You further quote: “And you have to remind people that drawing inferences about anyone based on race, sex, religion, or any other crude category is a lousy substitute for inspecting or interacting with that individual.” That is correct, but until we interact with that individual, what other choices do we have? Derbyshire made that exact intreraction point in his article.

Re: comment # 8, Nan G, well said. My intent was not to defend Derbyshire, but to point out that (1) Derebyshire has research to back up his conclusions, and (2) to illustrate the mendacity of Holder and Obama.

Re: comment # 10, Tom, you say, “…this post has no other reason to exist other than to rehash Derbyshire’s opinions, just under the false guise that he’s somehow a martyr to Holder and Obama’s perfidious double-dealing.” I refer you to the response to comment # 8. And I like “perfidious” much better than “mendacity.” 😉

Re: comment # 12, ilovebeeswarzone, thank you.

Re: comment # 18, bbartlog, you say, ” As for Derbyshire’s advice being hurtful and useless: it can be good advice even if there are exceptions.” I could not agree with you more. In fact, Derbyshire made that exact point: look for exceptions, evaluate individuals, but until you do, a generalization is all you can go on.

Re: comment # 19, John Galt, You are correct: Dave Bing is, indeed, a good guy. But I could not find a Coleman Young website.

Re: comment # 20, Tom, I could not find a Coleman Young website. Wasn’t Coleman Young black? And besides, picking one point to criticize does not invalidate the entire article. Or does it?

Using a generalization is profiling, something the government tried to outlaw. And we all know how well that is working!

ilovebeeswarzone

HOLDER GIVE A WRONG STATEMENT, BY SAYING WE ARE COWARDS, HE WANT TO HUMILIATE THE WHITE PEOPLE OR HE NEVER GET IT, AND MAKE BELIEVE TO THE BLACKS THAT THE WHITES ARE COWARDS,
HE DID NOT GET IT, HE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COWARD AND TOLERANCE,
AND THE WHITES ARE OVER TOLERANT AND KEEP AWAY FROM RACIST BEHAVIOR BECAUSE OF THEIR TOLERANCE AND COMPASSION FOR OTHER, IT SEEM THAT THE BLACKS WHO FEEL THEY MUST HATE AND TAKE WHAT THE WHITES POSESS BY ROBBING THEM, IS SHOWING THEY ARE GREEDY,
ENVIOUS AND HAVE A SELF CENTER POSITION IN THEIR LIFE, WHICH MEAN, ME ME ME
AND F..K THE WHITE, LIKE THAT WOMAN EXPRESSED, BY SAYING IT’S ABOUT TIME AND PAST DUE,
NO BODY OW THE BLACK ANYTHING, THE WHITES AND BLACKS SPILL THEIR BLOOD TOGETHER
FOR THIS AMERICA, AND THE PEOPLE ARE AMERICAN OR NOT,
AND THE WHITES HAVE SUFFER IN MANY INSTANCES ALSO, BUT THEY ARE TURNED MORE ON THE FUTURE NOT AS MUCH ON THE PAST AND FORGAVE IF THEY WHERE UNJUSTIFIED BUT THEY HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN, IF SOME FEEL THEY WHERE UNJUSTLY TREATED, THEY HAVE TO GET OVER IT FOR THEIR CHILDREN’S SAKE TO HAVE
A FREE LIFE FROM THE BURDEN THEIR PARENTS FEEL, AND THE FASTER THOSE CHILDREN LEARN TO NOT HAVE THE HATE TEACH TO THEM, THEY WILL BE LESS ENVIOUS OF THE WHITES,
AND THEY WILL GROW AND BECOME GOOD CITIZENS CARING FOR OTHER, NO MATTER THE COLOR,
EXACTLY LIKE THE NORMAL WHITES PEOPLE WHO LOVE THEIR COUNTRY.
TO COMMIT CRIMES IS SELFISH AND GUARANTY A MISERABLE LIFE, IN OR OUT OF PRISON,
FOR A LIFE WHICH COULD END UP TOO EARLY THAN DESIRE
AND NO FRIENDS WILL HELP, WHEN YOU’RE IN TROUBLE

Warren

ilovebeeswarzone

GREG
ON YOUR NUMBER 3
THE MAN IS RIGHT ON, IF YOU LOOK AT SO MANY OF THEM
ARE IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY, WHICH IS IN POWER NOW AND ALL OF
THEM ARE UNABLE TO MAKE AMERICA STAND ON HER TWO FEET,
IN JOBS AND IN THE ECONOMY, AND IN THE OUTRAGEOUS DEBT, AND STILL ASKING FOR MORE MONEY, AND WITH ALL THEIR PUBLIC WORKER IN AGENCIES DESTROYING THE FARM WITH IMPOSITIONS OF STUPID RULES, AND IN BUSYNESS BY GETTING LAWYERS TO ILLEGALLY EXTRACT MONEY FOR HANDICAP PEOPLE NEGLECT RULES THAT ARE JUST MADE UP TO TAKE MONEY FROM BUSYNESS, WHICH MAKE THEM VULGAR LOW LIFE CRIMINALS ALLOWED BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO CONTINUE THEIR RACKET WORSE THAN ANY MAFIA COULD EVEN TOUCH,
WHICH THEY ARE

Westie

I find the absolute attempts by all media to cover up the extreme amount of Black on White crime to be very interesting to this discussion. Derbyshire had the right idea in warning others to the danger poised by black American part of society. The cowardliness of the rest of the country to do the same is astonishing.